Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

A group attached to the online hacktivist group Anonymous claims to have hacked the Westboro Baptist Church Web site in response to plans by the controversial church to picket the funerals of those massacred Friday at a school in Newtown, Conn.

As part of a campaign dubbed #OpWestBoro, KY Anonymous said yesterday it posted the personal information belonging to members of the extremist organization, which is best known for conducting protests designed to disrupt the funerals of members of the military killed in action. The data dump included the names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and physical addresses of dozens of alleged members of the religious organization. The group did not indicate where or how it acquired the data.

The hackvitist group announced the move after several Westboro Baptist Church members announced the group's intention to target Newtown, which was the site of a school shooting Friday at claimed the lives of 26 people, 20 of whom were children age 6 to 7.

Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment.

Along with the data, KY Anonymous posted a video (see below) in which it pledged to derail the church's efforts.

"We will not allow you to corrupt the minds of America with your seeds of hatred. We will not allow you to inspire aggression to the social factions which you deem inferior. We will render you obsolete. We will destroy you. We are coming. "

In addition to military funerals, the church group has also targeted the funerals of prominent civilians, including that of Steve Jobs.

In a related action, a petition has been posted to WhiteHouse.org asking President Obama to have Westboro Baptist Church legally recognized as a hate group. Posted Friday, the petition already has more than 46,000 signatures, nearly twice the number needed for it to attract the president's attention. The petition states:

'Their actions have been directed at many groups, including homosexuals, military, Jewish people and even other Christians. They pose a threat to the welfare and treatment of others and will not improve without some form of imposed regulation."

Declaring them a hate group rather than a church (!?!) sounds like a step in the right direction. Honestly how do people end up so pathetically awful?

100% in agreement.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I've seen very little mention of the high school shootings last February in Chardon Ohio, where three were murdered and three injured, one severely.

WBC threatened to picket the funerals there as well, but they never turned up. I remembered their threats from last March (the shootings took place in late February) and I figured it was only a matter of time before they decided to get involved in this tragedy. I'm sorry to learn I was right.

It may be that the response to WBC's threats by local residents, as well as the motorcycle club Patriot Guard Riders, scared them off.

However, according to the main page of the PGR's website, they do not plan to help out at the funerals in Newtown because "Our mission statement is clear and regrettably the circumstances surrounding this tragic event do not fall within our mission statement." I don't understand what's changed between last March and now.

I agree that WBC should be officially listed as a hate group and prosecuted as such. What a bunch of unhinged scum.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I enjoyed the Anonymous video, while at the same time not liking the idea that a group would take it upon themselves to shut down free speech. That is a tad worrisome as well.

Not sure that they have "shut down free speech".... they are simply (finally) pointing out to these hate-filled Nazis that their speech may have consequences.While I agree that the WBC has the right to say what they wish and protest, others, also have the right to counter this. I do not find Anonymous worrisome at all -- they are attempting to do the same things that groups across the country have done to these folks -- tried to save grieving families from additionally, unneeded pain.I actually doubt that WBC will show up in Newtown -- quite frankly it could be too dangerous a place for them.

Not sure that they have "shut down free speech".... they are simply (finally) pointing out to these hate-filled Nazis that their speech may have consequences.While I agree that the WBC has the right to say what they wish and protest, others, also have the right to counter this. I do not find Anonymous worrisome at all -- they are attempting to do the same things that groups across the country have done to these folks -- tried to save grieving families from additionally, unneeded pain.I actually doubt that WBC will show up in Newtown -- quite frankly it could be too dangerous a place for them.

Mike

What are these consequences? Hacking their website and other communications? I don't like that. And, they will "not allow them to corrupt the minds of Americans" troubles me. I don't like any group saying what is corrupting people and deciding what speech should be heard. They are not clear what they plan to do. They do say they will not stop until they are destroyed.

Now, if their plan is to point out all the hypocrisy in this family, then that's great. There is plenty there. If they counter every hate speech with love and tolerance speech, then great. If they point out every inconsistency in the Bible, great. If they look into public records and find legal or financial wrong-doing as a way to shut them down, then great. If they do things by hacking their website, phones, and bank accounts, then that is something that would worry me.

Now, if their plan is to point out all the hypocrisy in this family, then that's great. There is plenty there. If they counter every hate speech with love and tolerance speech, then great. If they point out every inconsistency in the Bible, great. If they look into public records and find legal or financial wrong-doing as a way to shut them down, then great. If they do things by hacking their website, phones, and bank accounts, then that is something that would worry me.

That is way too naïve of you. I'm all for shutting these fuckers (and any other hate group) down. There comes a point when enough is enough. It's not as if they will ever understand any civilized approach. The hatred that they put into their children's minds is unforgivable. And the cruelty and lack of respect that they show for grieving families and friends shouldn't be protected by "free speech."

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I enjoyed the Anonymous video, while at the same time not liking the idea that a group would take it upon themselves to shut down free speech. That is a tad worrisome as well.

How is any of this shutting down free speech?

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Strictly read, it necessitated Federal governmental intervention into the aforementioned rights. People even cry "free speech" when they are censored by these forums. WBC routinely pickets JUST outside the private property of funeral homes and cemeteries, because all the adult men are attorneys and they know how to brush up against the letter v intent of the law without breaking it.

But there are several notable exceptions to the "freedom of speech" part of the Constitution:

Incitement

Quote

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]

1) Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

2) Volokh 2008, p. 3

3) Volokh 2008, p. 5

4) Volokh 2008, p. 7

Fighting words and offensive speech

Quote

A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[1] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend(s) to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[2] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[3][4]Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[5] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[6] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[7] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[8]

1) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

2) Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

3) Volokh 2008, p. 143

4) Camp 2005, p. 7

5) Volokh 2008, p. 144

6) Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

7) Cohen 2009, p. 12

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

There are also obscenity, false statement of fact, child child pornography, commercial speech, and other exceptions. The above id just more pertinent to the case at hand.

Hacking into the WBC website is illegal, of course. Hard as hell to trace and I doubt any entity of import would bother to try, but it's illegal.

Publishing/reprinting/posting what is public information is another thing, which Anonymous (for whom I have no great love: they are like the tentacled monster guarding the entrance to the Dwarves' mountain in LOTR - an amoral entity who will take out friend and foe with equal abandon) has promised to do is not illegal.

WBC routinely provokes and incites violence. They break the law just by setting up camp. Most municipalities and jurisdictions, however, lack the seemingly endless amount of time and money that WBC can demand through their exhaustive use (abuse) of the legal system. Look at my quote! They are cited!

Because they act as their own genius lawyers, they are able to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Their days are numbered, however, as laws have already been upheld such that protesting the funeral of military persons are now tightly controlled:

Quote

President Obama signed into law HR 1627, known as Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.Among the many provisions of the legislation — such as expanded care for veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury and benefits for Marines and families exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune — are specific new guidelines that will impact military funerals.Inconspicuously titled as “Prohibition On Disruptions of Funerals" (SEC. 601), the bill summarily prohibits individuals from engaging in any disruptive activity 120 minutes prior to and 120 minutes following the funeral services of a member or former member of the U.S. Armed Forces

This is NOT a free speech issue. Anonymous is not an agent of the government (so far as we can tell.)

Moreover, and forgive me if I seem to pile up on you, Ted, many people (especially internet people) talk about free speech without having a clear understanding of the concept as defined, redefined, and amended by the US Constitution.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 12:38:03 AM by jkinatl2 »

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I don't like any group saying what is corrupting people and deciding what speech should be heard.

So maybe AIDSMEDS should open up regarding denialism?

Sorry, Ted, but these people are evil. And they have enough power to do serious damage to the nation that grants them the freedom to do so. I believe that only someone working outside that purview will ever bring them down. And I am a pacifist and a pretty nice person at heart. But I would not shed a tear if a bud full of the entire doctrinated bunch of them exploded into flames.

Hopefully in the backyard of that Florida minister who burned the Koran and incited all that killing in the middle east.

I understand your rationale - what's keeping "them" from coming for YOU next?

Well here's some news. They've been "coming for" us for years, decades. It's about Goddamn time we push back.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

What are these consequences? Hacking their website and other communications? I don't like that. And, they will "not allow them to corrupt the minds of Americans" troubles me. I don't like any group saying what is corrupting people and deciding what speech should be heard. They are not clear what they plan to do. They do say they will not stop until they are destroyed.

Now, if their plan is to point out all the hypocrisy in this family, then that's great. There is plenty there. If they counter every hate speech with love and tolerance speech, then great. If they point out every inconsistency in the Bible, great. If they look into public records and find legal or financial wrong-doing as a way to shut them down, then great. If they do things by hacking their website, phones, and bank accounts, then that is something that would worry me.

Ted,

You seem to be confusing "free speech" with "free speech with no consequences" and they are not the same thing. That's the beauty of free speech. WBC can say whatever they want and they have that right, just like other Americans have the right to let them know what horrible people they are. No group is limiting their speech, just shining some light on the backgrounds and personal details of the people involved. It's about time this "church" (since when is an inbreed family considered a "church") started to enjoy the consequences of the hatred they spew.

As I said. All speech can have consequences and this couldn't happen to a more rotten group of inbreeds.

Yes, yes, freedom of speech only applies to the government. Sites like this can decide what can be said. We know this very well, as the gun control thread was shut down. I felt that was unneccessary and a shame, but I don't get to decide that here. My free speech rights were not violated, due to that. And, employers can decide what their employees can say at work. Some even say what they can say on their free time. I know this very well.

I should have used different phrasing. I don't like a group implying they will do illegal things to shut down a group. I don't like a group saying they will decide what and who is corrupting Americans. It isn't just implying. From what I understand, they already hacked their website and phones. When we justify that, then a group can hack this site, saying we are evil and spreading diseases. There are millions who probably agree. A group can hack the HRC and their bank accounts, believing they are doing God's work by doing so.

I would love to see them shut down. I just think when we go outside the law, then we lose the moral high ground. They should be shut down by having more and louder voices and using the law, when possible.

I just think when we go outside the law, then we lose the moral high ground.

I am actually more than okay with losing the moral high ground. I think anyone who illegally protested in the eighties and nineties regarding HIV/AIDS research, drug distribution, and services would agree. I choose my vigilante causes carefully. This is one.

Welcome to the second act of any fairy tale - where the hero, innocent and pure and on a noble quest, finds he has to do a terrible thing, a life-changing thing, to succeed. And he does, though at a terrible cost to himself.

At the end of the story, Joseph-Campbell style, that hero saves his home. his land, the innocents yet born, yet when he goes home, he finds himself adrift, alone - if not outright vilified - because he has done unseemly, maybe even evil things for the greater good as he and the situation understood it.

I suspect many veterans here have a similar tale. It's an old one. I am not going to mock or berate you, Teddy, for not having been at that horrible alter of sacrifice. I actually think you should continue, as long as you can, to post that perspective.

Odds are strong that someday you will not be able to do so, and that will, at least in part, feel like a real failure on my part to have kept you from that terrible, albeit perhaps inevitable path.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Folks around the nation are fighting back against the WBC. They were trying to picket a funeral of a soldier here in a small town here in Texas. The locals got wind of it and a whole bunch of them went to the hotel were the WBC was staying and blocked in any car with Kansas plates. Of course, the local police were slow in responding and oddly enough, there were not any tow trucks available to remove any of the cars that were blocking them in....In another incident students from Texas A&M formed a human chain around another funeral to prevent them from picketing..

I remember way back when I first heard about and saw footage of the WBC. This was before they started in earnest with all the funeral protests. I actually thought at first that they could possibly be some wickedly delicious performance art troup of some sort. I thought for a few moments that I might be witnessing genius.

It can be virtually impossible to stop people who believe their own view of morality trumps anyone and everyone else, while trying to maintain whatever you consider the moral high ground. We likely would still be British subjects -- actually, we might be subjects of Germany and/or Japan -- as we blurred morality in the American Revolution and WW II (like happens in any war).So, yes -- it would be great to stay on that high ground, that too comes with consequences -- sometimes those consequences are simply too high a price.Personally, I see nothing immoral with taking down the WBC with any means necessary. They care for NO ONE but themselves. They have issues with the US Gov't, so they take it out on the families of dead soldiers -- why would worry about them for even a single second?They have a right to say what they want -- without government interference. Well, so be it -- then it is up to someone outside the gov't to stop them.

What this church is doing is akin to child abuse or at the very least child endangerment . In one scene a child of the church is on a street holding a picket sign and a motorist passing by throws a soft drink and hits the child with it . There are other scenes where the children are asked what the signs they are holding means , as they struggle to answer their mom spoon feeds them the proper hate filled sound bites that serve as answers . This church or cult thinks they are the only family that's worthy of heaven .

Its very sad to see the young men and women that have been brainwashed since birth miss out and go on to live a life of wasted potential , all in the name of religion .

Don't get it twisted, Anonymous is stomping all over WBC's right to free speech. It just so happens that what they are spouting absolutely no one wants to hear so all of us are pretty much ok with it. Ted has a point even though no one wants to admit it. These people are completely without consequences or reprimand and so should they begin to stray from this very specific case then who would stop them?

Personally I made mention of the fact on my facebook that I wish the gunman had gone to WBC instead of Sandy Hook Elementary.

Personally I made mention of the fact on my facebook that I wish the gunman had gone to WBC instead of Sandy Hook Elementary.

There are innocent children in that church ... I see you are exercising your free speech wishing death on brainwashed men women and children ... is that really any different or less repugnant than what that church is engaging in . I'm not attacking you but I really wish you would reconsider what you have shared here .

There are innocent children in that church ... I see you are exercising your free speech wishing death on brainwashed men women and children ... is that really any different or less repugnant than what that church is engaging in . I'm not attacking you but I really wish you would reconsider what you have shared here .

I know exactly what I said. I don't wish death or misery on anyone, but there's a limit to my tolerance for intolerance. They are a hate group those innocent children will be brought up in the hate and will do exactly what their parents are doing. It's sick, but the only people with any power to change it are the ones propagating the behavior. So in this very specific scenario would I trade Sandy Hook for the hypothetical WBC massacre? In a heartbeat, moral relativism away!

I would hope that the reaction to what happened in Connecticut would bring conversations about what can be done to bring an end to massacres , not hypothetical rhetoric about trading one for another . If you want to champion free speech , using yours in this manner is unfortunate .

I know exactly what I said. I don't wish death or misery on anyone, but there's a limit to my tolerance for intolerance. They are a hate group those innocent children will be brought up in the hate and will do exactly what their parents are doing. It's sick, but the only people with any power to change it are the ones propagating the behavior. So in this very specific scenario would I trade Sandy Hook for the hypothetical WBC massacre? In a heartbeat, moral relativism away!

This might be some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. Would you be the one looking into to the eyes of the children of Westboro while they were murdered for the views of their father or would you prefer someone else have the blood on their hands?

Don't get it twisted, Anonymous is stomping all over WBC's right to free speech. It just so happens that what they are spouting absolutely no one wants to hear so all of us are pretty much ok with it. Ted has a point even though no one wants to admit it. These people are completely without consequences or reprimand and so should they begin to stray from this very specific case then who would stop them?

Personally I made mention of the fact on my facebook that I wish the gunman had gone to WBC instead of Sandy Hook Elementary.

...This is NOT a free speech issue. Anonymous is not an agent of the government (so far as we can tell.)

Moreover, and forgive me if I seem to pile up on you, Ted, many people (especially internet people) talk about free speech without having a clear understanding of the concept as defined, redefined, and amended by the US Constitution.

I don't understand why so many people don't get this concept. If I say to someone "If you go to a funeral and start spouting your religious nonsense I will shoot you in the face" that is not a free speech issue, that is communicating threats. Ted, I think your problem with Anonymous is that you feel they are communicating threats.

If any are interested, there is a petition on the White House site to have WBC labeled as a hate group. I honestly don't know the effectiveness of the petition, but I do know that an official label of hate group would damage their tax exempt status.

Unfortunately, in the United States, in order for "good" or "legitimate" free speech to be protected, "harmful" or "ridiculous" free speech (like the Phelps') must also be protected. To have one individual or one community draw a line and say, "X is unacceptable, but Y is totally fine" is to, in effect, limit the free speech of all on (legally) arbitrary grounds.

I cannot find words to accurately describe the Westboro Baptist Church, but I have actually had interactions with a couple of their members. What surprises me is how intelligent they are (Shirley, in particular). The most bizarre thing, to me at least, is that both Shirley and her father Fred are civil rights lawyers (no, I am not making that up). They know very well what is legal and what is not, and they toe the line very carefully. Perhaps "shrewd" is a better word than "intelligent," but the point is the same--contrary to how they're portrayed sometimes in the media, they're not stupid.

I also sometimes feel curiously sorry for them. I don't want to feel sorry for them (they don't deserve it!), but when I step back and think of what it must be like to be so deluded that you legitimately, really, totally, believe the world is against you--that has to be a painfully isolating and lonely way to live.

Logged

I am not a physician or nurse, and no comments from me can be construed as medical advice. Please seek such advice from a qualified healthcare professional.